Was an action filled entertaining movie, what they should be. The action on the bridge was the best of the lot :)
F|odgyI could apply those words to me and the movie Titanic :p Why spent $10 on a movie ticket and more on food to spend 3 hours listening to people cry?
well i had to put up with it for the simple fact that my girlfriend at the time wanted to see it.
I watched it yesterday, it was an ok action movie, I preferred MI2 more because it had something like a story and a build-up to that story.
light spoilers ahead:
The action-parts didn't overly impress me. The CGI looked crap in some scenes, Cruise gets thrown to the right although the explosion is behind him and he shoots down a goddamned fighterjet with a rifle? Ok,it was a German rifle, but still...
edit: what I did like about the movie is the theme-music. It didn't change much (which is probably why I still like it) but it's catchy nontheless.
MI-1 was a great movie. MI-2 was a huge disappointment to me as it went a completely different direction from the first movie, mainly due to the directing style but also because I thought the plot was rather weak.
I hope MI-3 is more like MI-1. More intelligent action thriller and less of the flashy, slick, look-at-what-I-can-do-with-the-camera kind of stuff. There are already enough of those type of movies.
To be honest, I'm not even that interested in going to see it since I was so disappointed in #2.
Nusentinsaino I don't listen to the entertainment media... they are devious bastards. [/quote]
Agreed!MrFancypants he shoots down a goddamned fighterjet with a rifle? [/quote] It was a remote controlled drone... if you were paying attention to the film or atleast had your eye sight checked you should have clearly seen that it was a remote controlled drone (ala Generals spy drone), there for it could have been taken out quite easily by any type of projectile firing weaponry, although hitting it is another story. [quote=MrFancypants] The CGI looked crap in some scenesThats strange cause I thought the CGI was combined seemlessly. That blur you see on the 'fighter jet' was what some people might call 'motion blur' FYI [quote=Saquist] I don't like disecting movies in quite the same way DNC does...reminds me of those idots Siskel and Ebert & Ropper
LOL... nuffsaid. ----------------------------------- Anyhow... the movie I thought was quite good, if your looking for a solid plot look elsewhere. However if its action your after you have come to the right place :naughty: The movie was sexy in every way a movie can be visually sexy :naughty: Personally I find it hard to believe anyone could think MI2 was better then MI3(or any movie in the world for that matter), in fact I dont believe it so ill just take it that it was some kinda stupid joke no one got. Although I may come across as a MI3 loveh, I am infact not. I miss the days of MI1, which was the sex! :naughty: Nothing will ever compete!
Tom Cruise, is amazing.
AINT HE! :naughty:
m1 was great m2 was good not that but nice (especially the scene with the porsche and the audi :p) m3 dont know but reading all of this, seems to be good :) and especially with hoffman!
sovereign001m1 was great m2 was good not that but nice (especially the scene with the porsche and the audi :p) m3 dont know but reading all of this, seems to be good :) and especially with hoffman!
M:I-1 = 6/10
M:I-2 = 4/10
M:I-3 = 7/10
That's pretty much how they break down. In my opinion.
Number 2 was tragic. So lame. Too much action, not enough character focus, quality dialogue or a storyline that is even remotely believable.